To refute or promote?

March 10, 2011

There
is an ongoing debate in the secular community about whether secularists
ought to concentrate more energy on criticizing bad religious and moral
ideas, or promoting positive values. This debate has frustratingly
continued since at least early 2009, when I joined the Center for
Inquiry, and has no apparent end in sight. While I do not propose to
have a solution, I do feel the need to offer a few observations that
could help clarify this dispute.

Broadly
speaking, the debate features two camps. The first camp believes a
robust public discourse includes a good deal of critical discussion on
religious belief, considering that faith and dogma so negatively shape
social and political life. The second camp thinks that the first
focuses too much on disparaging religious belief, and presses for more
attention to the advancement of positive values. But, for several
reasons, there is no real conflict between the two, even if one is
perceived.

It
seems to me that a person cannot be against an idea without being for
something. When arguing against an idea, one is surely tearing
something down. But one is also doing so because he or she values
things like science, reason, and secular thinking. Moreover, one can
only critique an idea if he or she has a methodology by which to judge
that idea. And a critical methodology is meant precisely to help people discard old, untrue ideas and keep building upon the better ones.

It
is often difficult, or even impossible, to present an absolutely
comprehensive case against someone's position and in favor of your own
method and position in the same forum. Billboards, books, blog
posts and public events only allow so many words. One does not always
get the chance or have the time to fully outline their reasons for
critique. But this does not imply that one does not hold good reasons,
or thinks that reasons are unimportant. It only suggests a different approach.

For example, Christopher
Hitchens is a proud secular humanist. But he spends more time writing
and speaking about religious belief than he does clarifying his moral
worldview. Is there any reason to doubt his secular humanist
credentials because of this? Is his critique of religious belief not
helping foster a secular humanist society? Is he really doing harm by
increasing the amount of public discourse on religion?

In
fact, refuting and promoting are sometimes two different but
complementary discussions. This is because refuting religious belief
might be about evaluating truth claims while promoting values might be
about moral claims. This was the topic of another recent debate in the
secular blogosphere
, over the claims made by Sam Harris in his book
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
.
I do not claim to be a philosopher, but my position is that fact-based
discussions of truth and untruth are different in nature than moral
discussions of right and wrong -- though, of course, the two can be approached in a similar manner, and are sometimes inextricably tied.
This means that concerns about the veracity of religious beliefs are
different from concerns about constructing a positive moral framework.
Both are important, but they are distinct.

In the end, I believe this is a mistaken debate between people with slightly differing interests. Slightly
is the operative word here, for both groups would certainly be
considered members of the same team. Many of them even work together at
the same secular organization. The critic of religious faith and dogma is on the same side as the promoter of secular moral values. To
squabble about whose interests are more important is to lose sight of
the underlying problem: the staggering amount of uncritical thinking
that is putting society to ruin.

E-Mail Updates

Search All Free Thinking Blogs

Michael De Dora is director of the Center for Inquiry's Office of Public Policy and the organization's representative to the United Nations. In addition, he serves as president of the United Nations NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief.